home | site map | policy | order form | contact | shopping cart | 

Yahua~ Revealed Calendar~ Sabbath .


This is a page with the explanation of Yahua's name and how to pronounce it.

Shlwm everyone, sorry for the long wait for a reply. I have been quite busy lately with school so I have had little to no time to even ponder the issue at hand, let alone construct a reply!
I had wished to write MUCH more, but I have run out of time and would like to at least submit what I have writen thus far.

Anyhow, here is the outline of my reply (sorry that this is long!)
Outline of reply:
A.) Why not yah-HOO?
B.) Why can the name YHWH not be directly derived from the name YHWDH?
C.) What sounds can H [Hy] take on?
D.) Errors in SEC.
E.) Where did the form, "Yahweh" come from? What testimonials does it have?

A.) Why is trigrammaton YHW pronounced as yhw (ee-a-oo) and not yah-HOO?
1. The Murashu text (Aramaic) has Yahu (Yhw or Y' as some scholars write it) for the trigrammaton YHW in names beginning with the Yahwistic theophoric element, yet it MUST be noted that in Aramaic the H [Hy] is silent, thus the trigrammaton, pointed with a qmts and shreq (exactly like the -yhw theophoric element at the end of names in the MT), sounds like Yau, not Yah-HOO. (Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century b.c., xviii) The, "eeaoo" sound also stands true for the Babylonian form Yau. The Greeks maintained the trigrammaton in many forms, all attemtping to retain the pronunciation, "eeaoo". These include:
a. IAW (eeaoo; DSS, Egyptian magical papari, Diodorus, Origin, Theodoret, Irenaeus, Codex Marchalianus, Prayer of Jacob)
b. IEOW (eeaoo; Porphyry)
c. IAOU (eeaoo; Clement)
Jerome also gives the Latin form IAHO ("O" being equivalent to "oo"). A text left to us by a Coptic Christian leaves the name in the form IAW (Coptic; eeaoo) and in Greek as IAW.
All these forms back up the sound, "Yau" or "eeaoo" but leave no inkling of the form, "yah-HOO".
The full forms of the name respond in kind. The Coptic form Yahou can be directly associated with the name YHWH [Yheh]. The Coptic/Greek form "ou" is equivalent to a W [Ww] pointed with a shreq. This is evident from the allelouia in Greek, as the W [Ww] pointed with a shreq is found to be equivalent to the transliterated sound, "ou". This above statement is equally true of the Greek form, "Iaoue" which indeed contains the sound, "eeaoo". The Latin IAUE and Iae (this form being both the Samaritan form and the form of an early Christian Sect according to Epiphanius) both also attempt to retain the sound, "eeaoo".
All the evidence posts to "ee-ah-oo" or "Yau". There is not the slightess inking of a hard, "hoo" sound.
2. Dr. Rainey, Prof. of Semitic Languages at Tel-Aviv University, Israel, states when discussing the pronunciation of the trigrammaton in ancient Hebrew that:
"The theophoric component in Northern Israelite personal names, written -YW on epigraphic texts, was never pronounced -y! The final W did not come into use as a final marker for a final vowel until the post-exilic period. In the 8th and 7th centuries when we have these personal names ending in -YW, the W was a consonant and the pronunciation was yaw (or yau). So anyone can see that the difference between northern -yaw and southern -yh is not that great, especially since the -h- in the southern form was fairly weak."
Dr. Rainey, an expert in Semitic languages at one of the worlds leading universities in studies into Hebrew who has published an extenive volume dealing with ancient Hebrew linguistics (availible through Eisenbrauns), should be taken seriously when he says, "The -h- (my note: H [Hy]) in the southern form was fairly weak". Also see reason #5 below for more info on this... (Bible Archeological Review; Sept/Oct 1994).
To further his statement is the conclusion reached by Qadesh La Yahweh Press in their book, "The Sacred Name YHWH" when they point out that the H [Hy] in YH could be subplanted with an ' ['Alef]. This is evident in the forms of the same name TsPLY' and TsPLYH. Both make the distincitve, "Yah" or "Yaw" sound, though spelled differently (Ywd-Hy versus Ywd-'Aleph). How can one maintain the, "yah-HOO" premise when those who maintained the sound for YH go as far as to change out the 'Alef? Y'W (Ywd-'Aleph-Ww) could not form the, "yah-HOO" sound but only furthers the vowel arguement.
The authors of the Polychrome Bible agree. They state:
"The true pronunciation seems to have been Yahw (or Iahway, the initial I = y, as in Iachimo). The final e should be pronounced like the French , or the English e in there, and the first h sound as an aspirate. The accent should be on the final syllable." (by Prof. Haupt; pp. 163-164)
Note this scholar also agrees the initial H [Hy] was silent in YHWH.
3. This statement is furthered by "A Students Vocabulary for Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic" (1983). When accenting the pronuncuation of names with the Yahwistic theophoric element at the end of names, the accent is placed on the Y [Ywd] and not the H [Hy], thus forming the construct of YAH-oo or YAH-hoo (I supplied this form only to appease those who insist as it is not in the book, there is no dagesh, thus the H [Hy] can NOT be used twice rendering such a form errant, thus YAH-oo is the only plasible rendering). I can not stress enough the H [Hy] in the trigrammaton YHW is not pointed with a dagesh. It is implausible to make the sound, "YH-HW" from YHW. This sound would be formed from YHHW. This is similar to the form, "YHWeH" when the W [Ww] is pronounced twice, thus making the name, "YHHWWH" and not "YHWH". Those who know Hebrew will recognize the addition of a dagesh into a charactor results in (most cases less the BGD KFT letters) doubling of the charactor, i.e. a L [Lahmed] with a dagesh is equivalent to a double L, such as "LL". This is true in the word, "HLLWYHW". This word would be pronounced, "HaLLeLWYHW". Note that the first L [Lahmed] is pronounced twice, this is because it is pointed with a dagesh. This is NOT true of the trigrammaton, as the H [Hy] in YHW has NO dagesh. The precedent sound (and remember this is an element of a name, thus there should be little to no alteration as it is shortened) of YH from YH should not be ignored.
Anyhow, is not H [Hy] as you were arguing the letter that MADE the "ah" sound in paleo-Hebrew phonics? How can it make both sounds, of "ah" and "H" in the same word? For the same letter? And what scholars say that Y [Ywd] makes a "ya" sound?
Do you see the paradox you have created?
4. The precedent of Yh [CvC] should not be ignored. This closed system becomes very awkward with the form, "Ya-HOO" in morphing into a, "Cv-CvC" (or more realistically, "Cv-Cv" as the W [Ww] pointed with a shreq is clearly a vowel letter). The form, "Yah-HOO" breaks down the establish YH form of forming the sound, "Yh".
5. YH & YW = YHW in sound. It is IMPOSSIBLE to concieve, "Yah-HOO" from YW.
Though I do not have a lot of time to thoroughly discuss this subject (this is something I am working on), one will have noticed in Dr. Rainey's quotes that YW & YH = YHW in sound. This makes sense for many reasons.
First is the testimony of Josephus and Epiphanius that the name is vowels. As vowel letters, depending no dialect, certain sounds could be trascribed to different letters.
Another point is inside the MT text there is a rampant interchangability if YHW with YH and YW in dialects. some examples are:
• Yhf : Ywf [YHWF : YWF], AV Joseph
• S@ryhw : S@ryhw [SRYHW : SRYH], AV Seraiah
• Yhntn : Ywntn [YHWNTN : YHWNTN], AV Jonathan
• 'Abyyhw : 'Abyyh ['BYHW : 'BYH], AV Abiah
• B@nyhw : B@nyh [BNYHW : BNYH], AV Benaiah
• 'Adnyhw : 'Adnyh ['DNYHW : 'DNYH], AV Adonijah
• 'lyyhw : 'lyyh ['LYHW : 'LYH], AV Elijah
• 'Achyyhw : 'Achyyh ['ChYHW " 'ChYH], AV Ahijah
• 'wryyhw : 'wryyh ['WRYHW : 'WRYH], AV Uriah
(NOTE: names beginning with YHW- are vowel pointed in the MT as, "Y@hw").
In many of these occasions it is the same person, where in one verse he is called one name, while in the following verse he is called another. There can be very few postulations as to why this is, and a "living" understanding of YH & YH = "yahu" in sound is probably the best theory in light of the evidence.
Another interesting note is to see that in the reflexive of names like, "Yw'av" [YW'B] is, "'Avyyhw" ['BYHW]. This is true of many names like, "Yw'l and 'lyyhw" and so on. This demonstrates a clear stream of thought/pronunciation between YW and YHW.
To further this is that as we go back in archeology the prominensce of YHW as a form inscreases while the YH and YW forms seemingly dissappear, demonstrating they are either glosses or dialectical differences (per the arguement of Rainey). An intersting example that is prominent is the form, "HLLWYHW" in the Habukkuk pesher in Qumran. Another indication of the, "YHW" sound for the forms YH and YW is the Assyrian kings list which clearly transliterate many names with a -yh ending as, "Yahu". Again, either the MT has been glossed (and YH is a foriegn form) or it was a dialectical spelling, which was transliterated as, "-yahu".
To cement this claim of YH = YHW in sound (beyond the MT examples, Assyrian king lists, and schoaltic confirmation) is the LONE example of YH at the beginning of a name has recently been unearthed: YHDH for YHWDH. It is a resounding testimony in the ancient word that "Judah" started with the sound, "Yahu". Yet why the YH spelling? It is obvious they were not being called, "Yhdah".
What this is is confimration of the theory put forth by Dr. Rainey and QLYP in their book, "The Sacred Name YHWH". [QLYP in their book notes that YH = YHW per H is often found being equal to HW in sound].
There is so much more to this issue (like the stripping of the trigrammaron in BRWKYHW and ShBNYHW, YHWH ostracon and the name 'ShYHW, the DSS trend from YHW to YH, ther extensive evidence from archeology of the prominensce of the form YHW, etc...) but time is concern (I am hoping to aid one of my close friends in his efforts to finish a lengthy discussion of pronunciation this summer, so manybe then this evidence can be brought to the forefront).
Surprisingly, this evidence and theory makes a lot of sense, especially in light of the fact the letters of the trigrammaton and tetragrammaton are all vowels, which makes this plausible, if not extremely likely.
One now asks the questions: "If YHW is consenants, how is this explained." Even more, "How is the sound, 'Yaw-hoo" formed from YW as is clearly seems to be the equivalent sound of YHW?"
This is the kind of evidence that would need to be answered if the, "Yaw-hoo" stance is taken, and such evidence would need to be answered straight forward as this leaves large anomolies.
CONCLUSION: The ponunciation, "yah-HOO" begs special pleading.
. . . a. It bears no archeological precedent of any kind in the form of ancient transliterations (to my knowledge).
. . . b. It tears down the precedent set by the form Y [Yh and Yhh] in vocalization.
. . . c. It ignores archeological and Biblical evidence to the equivlance of of the sound yhw [YHW] in the forms YW and YH.
. . . d. The accenting goes against that set by the MT. Further it petitions the formation of a "double H [Hy]" (i.e. a Hy with a dagesh) which is not evident, and is contradicted by all evidence.
. . . e. It causes a conflict with the conept of vowels for the sacred name.
As you can see, the sound, "Yaw-hoo" (SEC writing, or per the opposing arguement written as Yah-HOO) is not plausible for many fundamental reasons. And on the large scale of this issue, it strikes deep at the the best evidence, while being supportd by nothing tangible itself.

B.) Why can the name YHWH not be directly derived from the name YHWDH?
Don said:
". . . . . The question between you and myself Acert 93 is the ending "EH" or "AH".
Well go back and look at the NAME "YAHUWDAH"
If you take out the letter "D"---- you have "YAHUWAH". . . . ."
My reply to this notion has seemingly been ignored, thus I wish to respond to it once again to clear the issue.
In no way can the tetragrammaton YHWH be derived from the tribal name YHWDH.
The reasons are simple. First, the name itself is the combonation of 2 words: YHW & YDH (i.e. YHW (Yahu) and YDH (praise(r)). As pointed out this is the etymology per the definition in Gen 29:35.
It must be understood that YHWDH is NOT JUST the Sacred Name YHWH with an extra letter inserted. It is TWO words. The last portion of the word YHWDH (i.e. the DH prortion) carries over the vowels from Ydh and has no correlation whatsoever to YHWH.
Furthermore, when Yahwistic names are formed we NEVER see a word transplanted to both the front and back of the name as suggested as YHWDH being equivalent to YHWH with a D [Dalet] subplanted in the middle. Look:

• Yhwshw`a (YHWShW`) = Yahw + shw`a = conjigation of YHW + YSh`_(Yasha`)
• 'Elyyhw ('LYHW) = 'ely + Yhw = conjigation of 'L_('el) + YHW
• Yhwtsadakh (YHWTsDK) = Yhw + tsadakh = conjugation of YHW + TsDK_(tsadakh)
• Yirmeyhw (YRMYHW) = Yirme + Yhw = YHW + RWM_(rwm)
• Yesha`yhw (Ysh`YHW) = Yesha` + Yhw = YSh`_(Yasha`) + YHW
• Yhwyaqiym (YHWYQYM) = Yhw + yaqiym = YHW + QWM_(qwm)
• Benayhw (BNYHW) = Bena + Yhw = BNH_(banah) + YHW
And we have of course the name in quesiton:
• Yahwdah (YHWDH) = Yhw + dah = YHW + YDH_(YDH)
Notice the names Yahwshw`a and Yesha`yahw. See how the root's vowel sounds changed? Now notice the name Yirmeyhw. The root RWM looks completely different from the YRM at the beginning. This is caused by conjigation. YRM and RWM have different charactors and different sounds but have the same meaning. Similar story with the name Yahwyaqiym. Two yodh's were added into the name, but ONLY to the area of the QWM root. Similar story with Benayahw where the root bord is Benah (BNH; build) yet is altered to BN. It is NOT uncommon to drop letters during conjigation.
Anyhow, when adding words together into compound ideas the words often change in sound. Even more, you NEVER see one of the base words SPREAD OUT!
The entire idea of YHWDH = YHWH with a D inserted is errant and has no basis nor precedent in the Hebrew scriptures.
It breaks all the models we have. It is wishful thinking.
Furthermore, there has been placed a very high amount of "hope" on the accuracy of the YHWDH vowel points. This would be a wrongful idealization of the subject.
First is the fact YHWDH is a Yahwistic name. This is attested to by the etymology of the name per Gen 29:35 and is thoroughly supported by ancient transliterations (though I note many are varied to the last element, as one will see). The Egyptians refered to them as the, "Yahoud", very similar to the proto-Negev form YHD. We also find in scriptures five times the form YHWD [Y@hwd] for "Judah". We find in some bulla from the age of Chizeqyyhw with the form YHDH (other names on the bulla are also shortened in other phonic ways supporting the conept that YH here is forming the sound, "Yahu", thus YHDH making the sound, "Yaudah"). The problem lies in that it, like other names beginning with the Yahwistic element, is altered. Unlike the other names, it varies immensely in the acnient world in how it was pronounced/depicted in written form. Some of the best sources drop the last letter/sound altogether, making any defined conclusion as to the original pronunciation sketchy at best.
The problem is compounded though, as there is serious doubt as to whether we can blatently trust the Tiberian vowel points at all in the name YHWDH. Unlike other Yahwistic names that use the standard, "Y@hw" it uses the odd, YHWDH uses the "Y@hw" gloss which raises a certain amount of uncertainty to the actual state of the name. A parallel example can be seen in the name YHW' (MT- Yhw'; AV- Jehu). This is a Yahwistic name (per the Akkadian Yahua), though it contradicts the MT first and last vowel points. Could the same be said of the name YHWDH? Are the first and last vowel points worthless as this evidence would suppose?
CONCLUSION: YHWDH is equivalent to YHW plus YDH. It is NOT YHWH with a D [Dalet] inserted. You can NOT reconstruct the name YHWH from YHWDH as the last two letters [DH] come from a different word [YDH; yadah, praise] with a different sound. This theory is erronious and stems from the errant concept that "YHW" is the sacred name of the creator and that his people [mistakenly YHWDH; in context properly YSR'L] bear this name.
Even more, the idea (if the above stood true, though it has been disproven) that the vowel points in YHWDH (even after the Yahwistic theophoric form undergoes reconstruction) are "clean" enough to depict the natural state of the sacred name YHWH is thuroughly muddied. Many of the best ancient forms have no testimony as to the last vowel sound, and there is a strong correlation to one of the few other non-Yeho Yahwistic names that indicates that the entirety of the vowel points in the name YHWDH are worthless, ESPECIALY when reconstruction of the sacred name is at stake.

C.) What sounds can H [Hy] take on in ancient Hebrew?
There are two distinct questions I aim to answer here:
#1. Can H [Hy] have more then one vowel sound?
#2. What sounds did it make?
Can H [Hy] have more then one vowel sound? When we examine the other 2 vowel letters in the name YHWH (Y [Ywd] and W [Ww]) we realize they BOTH make more then ONE sound.
• Y (Ydh) = "e" (as in prEy; i.e. tsereh_YODH) or "i"
• W (Ww) = "u" (i.e. shureq_WAW) or "o" (i.e. holam_WAW)
In all fairness, one would now ask, "Could H [Hy] also make more then one vowel sound also?" The evidence seems to point toward a conclusion of, "Yes, it can".
First are some sources that attest that H [Hy] could make the sounds of, "ah" "eh" "ay" in ancient times:
• "A Beginner's Handbook to Biblical Hebrew" p.7 • "How the Hebrew Lagnuage Grew" pp.333f • "A Practical Grammer for Classical Hebrew" pp.6f (sources obtained from QLYP)
So it seems scholars agree that like Y [Ywd] and W [Ww], H [Hy] also made more then one vowel sound.
Also note thay scholars say that the H [Hy] could ahve the sounds, "ah" "eh" or "ay".
Yet there is more. In the MT text we are left a trace of the multitude of sounds a H [Hy] can/could make. Since the in question pronunciaiton is the final H [Hy], we will again examine the sounds it can make when in the final letter in the first 3 chapters of B@re'shyt (less the "ah" sounds).:
Gen 1:9 WTR'H (eh sound) Gen 1:11 `SH (eh sound) Gen 1:12 `SH (eh sound) Gen 1:26 N`SH (eh sound) Gen 1:29 YHYH (eh sound) Gen 2:4 'LH (eh sound) Gen 2:5 HSDH (eh sound) Gen 2:5 YHYH (eh sound) Gen 2:5 HSDH (eh sound) Gen 2:6 Y`LH (eh sound) Gen 2:9 LMR'H (eh sound) Gen 2:18 '`ShH (eh sound) Gen 2:19 HSDH (eh sound) Gen 2:20 HSDH (eh sound) Gen 3:1 HSDH (eh sound) Gen 3:14 HSDH (eh sound) Gen 3:16 'RBH (eh sound) Gen 3:18 HSDH (eh sound) In this short survey of Gen 1-3, we will note a final H [Hy] makes only two sounds: "ah" (which we ignored as it is agreed H [Hy] is an "a" class letter as also is ' ['Alef]) and "eh".
The point: H [Hy] seems to ALSO (and OFTEN) carry the "eh" sound. Therefor, "eh" is NOT out of the question -- to the contrary. As the determination of vowel sounds for paleo-Hebrew stems MAINLY from observation of the text itself, I would say the mass of "eh" endings would lean strongly for the dual sound nature of H [Hy] in compliance with the usage of the other 2 main vowel letters W & Y.
Thus, what I am saying is as follows: As Y & W have 2 vowel sounds in paleo-Hebrew per modern-scholarship, I suggest from the fact the final H picks up the "a" and "e" sound for the majority (if not ALL of the time) in the MT that it ALSO has two vowel sounds. I ask you, "Why not?"
You asked WHY the H [Heh] has a different sound then the first one, and now I have given you a reason why: Because it is appearant that just as the Y&W have two vowel sounds, the H also does. And there is no reason why they must have the same vowel sound.
CONCLUSION: We can conclude through the testimony of scholars, the testimony of the text, and through the correlation of the multiple sounds of the other vowel letters Ywd and Ww that H [Hy], like the other vowel letters in YHWH, does have at least two original vowel sounds. Furthermore, we can conclude that "ah" and "eh" are both attested to by scholars and the internal evidence of the MT text.
What the last vowel sound is has no bearing on this specific question of the status of the sound of Hy. The quesiton at hand was if H [Hy] could have multiple sounds and if it could have an "eh" final sound. the evidence is a resounding, "YES".

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> D.) Errors in SEC
SEC has been used as an authority to, "Dictate" a usage of, "HOO". Though in all reality the way in which the MT scribes maintained the sound of the trigrammaton is almost useless (as they were the ones who set forth the vowel point glosses which cleartly deonstrates their theological bias, thus there is no amount of certainty we can place on their points when in conjunction with the name) I think it would be pertinant to demonstrate that how Dr. Strong transliterated, "-yhw" in names is errant in the anglosization he uses. Though I have dealt with the transliteration of YHW above, I think it may be useful to point out that SEC, although a very good work easily used by the layman, is not innerrant.

The first error one will see in SEC is at the very beginning of the list of words in ' ['Aleph]. As many of you know a B [Byth] without a dagesh is transliterated as "v" and not "b". Yet, the first 46 words do NOT have a dagesh in the B [Byth] yet are translitered as "b". The first B [Beyth] with a dagesh [SEC# H0047; 'BYR, 'abyr -- angel, mighty (one), bull, chiefest, strong (one), valient, etc.] is also transliterated as "b".

This breaks Mr. Strong's OWN rules of transliteration at the beginning of of his work. Though not a ground shaking error, it is a blatent error none the less that breaks the rules he has chosen to use.

Another error can be found in the name YHWShW`/YHWSh`. He writes (under SEC# H3091) - Y@hwshwa` - Y@hwsh`a. There are two errors here: First, he seemingly can not decide where he wishes the `Ayin to be. This may seem minor, but since the anglosized, "yaw-hoo" and the placing of accents is at issue (which is a very minute detail) I think it is important to note his deviation from his own practices. Could it be a "freely' interprets how he thinks some of these things worked, versus standard rules (he claims to follow)?

Second, the "u" sound on the second "Yahushua" (YHWSh`; Yhwshu`a) is a Qibbuts [u], NOT a Shrq []. Following his transliteration format given at the beginning of his book, this is a grievous error, as a Qibbuts is represented as a, "u" and NOT a "". If this is vicarious Qibbuts, he gives no indication. The point is that here again Mr. Strong has either broken his own rules or chosen to neglect to inform his reader as to his decision. Either way, he gives an errant presentation to his reader.

Another good point is about his arachaic transliterations. Just because his "anglocization" has "yesh-ah-yaw-hoo" for YSh`YHW means nothing (mind you this is a 100 year old anglosization, not to mention a technical one!). Please note that he also has for the "transliteration" of YSh`YHW the word Y@sha`yhw before the anglocization. (@= sh@v' / superscript "e"). Y@sha`yhw would be, "Yesh-aa-yah-oo". His break up of YHW as yaw-hoo is unnatural, ignores the YH precedent, ignores the vowel nature of the H [Hy], ingores that H [Hy] is silent according to many scholars, and ignores many of the best transliterations of the trigrammaton [i.e. the Babylonian Yau and mult. sources with the Greek IAW (eeaoo)].

Note Mr. Strong also uses the "Vv" and not a "Ww" in his work (Ashkenazic/Germanic usage versus the Sephardic/ancient). We can also note his that he follows the changed vowel points on the name YHWH, which in his time was already known to have been changed. Even more, he transliterates them as Y@hvh and Y@hvih. PLEASE NOTE he says Y@hvh, though it is clearly a Chyriq Qtn [i] and not a Chyriq Gdwl [y or ], which furthers my case of either lack of documentation or errors in his work. Why has he chosen to put a [] in that word when it is clearly an [i]? We shall never know, but it is obviously and error. SEC also uses the altered vowel points at the beginning of names with the Yahwistic theophoric element [YHW-], which beggs the question, "If he was going to freelance in areas, why did he not change these words back, or at least transliterate them in his anglosization back correctly?".

I could nit pick SEC all day if I wished so, but that would defeat the purpose. Though SEC is an EXCELLENT source, it is errant to assume he is correct in all manners and made no errors, especially when one refers to Biblical Hebrew grammers as an authority. SEC is over a hundred years old and MUCH information has been uncovered. Even more, scholars have learned much from their mistakes. SEC can be found at fault on occassion, which is to be expected of any groundbreaking work. He himself states that he wished for SEC to be used by a wide audiance and was for the use of laypeople. With that in mind, we should remember what it was meant for, and nothing more nor nothing less. Here a CONCLUSION: The case of SEC being the, "End of the arguement per the pronunciation of YHW" is just not true. There is by far too much weight against SEC on this issue. Furthermore, I have shown SEC to be errant on the name issue already and pointed out other errors that bring up the archaic status of the work cited. I like SEC and is a very good quick reference. That said though, I recognize it's faults and lack of documentation. It is rediculous to base a thorough discussion off of SEC for the very reason it is NOT a thorough grammer of rules, and it is NOT a thorough work at all. It is aimed more towards lay people, and Strong himself points people toward Gesenius and the likes for a thorough discussion of the words.

Furthermore, the continued support of, "Yaw-hoo" not only underminds the best and most prominent transliterations, it would contradict the 4 vowels clearly. Anyhow, IF it is HOO as you claim, we LOSE the vowel status of the name... and then there is no reason for "Yahuwah" [Yhwh or Yhwah?] If I were to act as some have, and I were to ignore and take out the ancient transliterations from this debate (that support the vowel status), we are left by quotes by Eusibius (a pagan) and Josephus (a pagan, and traitor) to support the vowels. For the same reasoning about the transliterations, we would then regect these sources. Then where are we? Not only do we have no evidence, we are stuck relying on the postulization of men with their own motives.

I think this is errant thinking. Unless we look at all the evidence honestly and put aside our own ambitions/preconcieved notions this discussion is pointless. SEC is not an authroity on this subject, and thus should be ignored (or taken with the insight that his work was never intended to be used in discussing this type of issue -- because it by far lacking and in no way anal enough when it comes to it's own standards).

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> E.) Where did the form, "Yahweh" come from? What testimonials does it have?

The first misnomer to correct is the root of the form, "Yahweh". It first appeared in 1567 and was proposed by Genebrardus (German, "Jahwe"). This form was mainly based off the evidence of the claim of Theodorant that the Samaritans used the Greek form, "Iae" (latin Iabe). I will also note Epiphanius also stated beside Samaritans an early Christian Sect (obviously not of the accepted, "orthodox" style) used the form Iae (this form having ancient roots, which eventually lead to the form IAUE in Latin because of the changing 'living" Latin).

This form is not depandant on the "church fathers" as the Samaritans through the midevil times carried the sound, "Yahwe" out in Arabic, confirming the testimonies of the Greek/Latin forms attested anciently to them. The form, "Yahwe" should not be whitewashed and ignored because the Samaritans were accused anciently of using the name YHWH in oaths (properly). The fact they have a living priesthood would substantiate the claim they have passed on the pronunciation. The forms, "Iae" and "Iabe" are infact anciently authentic and rooted in the Samaritan tradition, not the "church fathers" (Jerome gives the short form [YHW] for Iabe as IAHO, demonstrating his understanding that the "b" made the sound of "oo" and not "b". "The Sacred Name YHWH" from www.yahweh.org has much more to say about the Samaritan form and is a valuable refernce on this form].

Furthermore, ancient pre-Christian papari contain the name in Greek. The most common form is Iaoue. Many varient forms also occur (in the dubbious effort to maintain the vocalization of the tetragrammaton in Greek), one of wich is Iaoue. Clement later used the form, "Iaoue" when transliterating the name YHWH. Note that his form is obviously agreeable to the Jewish-Egyptian form (especially the short form Iaoue), which in all reality set the precedent form. Also note that they both share the common Jewish-Egyptian/DSS backbone for "Yahu" in the Greek IAW. The "church fathers" in all their errors were NOT leading us astray with some odd tradition, but were honestly conveying the tetragrammaton's vocalization across to their readers.

As we can see, the froms, "Iae" and "Iaoue" are the precedent forms NOT from the "church fathers" that the "church fahters" relayed to us in similar forms (if not identicle). These forms are based one the ancient backbone for YHW, and thus rules out any likelyhood that they are deceptive forms.

As for my stance on pronunciaiton:
• It is 4 vowels (Josephus, Epiphanius, Hebrew grammers confirm vowle status of Y, H, W, ' in ancient Hebrew).
• The sound for YH is unquestiobably, "Yh"
• The sound, "ee-a-oo" (or Y) is cemented in history for the pronunciation of the trigrammaton YHW (To much evidence to site, though four good witnesses are: Babylonian-Yau; Greek-IAW (ee-ah-oo); Murashu/Aramaic-Yhw/Yau; MT Yahwistic name endins-Yhw).
• The forms that attest to the sound for YHWH are hugely in the favor of ee-a-oo-eh/"Yahweh":
-Greek/Latin Iae/Iabe (ancient Samaritan form and used by an early Christian sects usage per Epiphanius, Theodorant, etc.; clearly making the sound, "Yahweh" from their later usage in Arabic and the usage of the ancient "" and the ancient roots of the form)
-Latin IAUE (varient form from Epiphanius confirming "modern" pronunciation versus ancient form Iabe/Iae, makes vocalization of "ee-ah-oo-eh")
-Greek Iaoue (mult. appearances in many similar forms, mult. Egypto-Jewish sources, Church Father sources; based off DSS/Hellenistic backbown IAW, IAW [also written as IA] is also attested to by the early ante-Niceane Church writters)
-Greek Iaoue (Clement, similar to the Jewish-Egyptian magic paparus forms [one being Iaoue])
-Cuniform Yahweh from the time of Hammurabi
-Coptic Yahou (Ethiopic Christian)
-Arabic Yahwe (Later Samaritan usage, further substantiating the "Iae" = "Yahweh" and the accurateness of this usage)
• Ancient Samaritan poetry with the name YHWH has a rhyming patern with the final syllable "eh".
Yet, like Mr. Clover of QLYP I agree that the form, "Yahweh" should be used with some caution. The "w" in Yahweh is not pronounced like a harsh consenant/semi-vowel, but instead carries the "u" sound [i.e. a Ww pointed with a shreq]. This is why I favor the transcribing of the form, "Yheh" or "Yahueh" instead of "Yahweh".

I am not alone on my conclusion of the vocalization of the tetragrammaton though. After surveying a large mass of the evidence as we have, we can clearly see how, "Yheh" is very close to the original sound, if not identical. But I am not alone in the, "Yahweh" crowd:

• Grande Encyclopedie (under Jehovah) Yahveh ... the pronunciation is probably more exactly reproduced by writing YAHOUEH. (Obtained from Chris Koster's article)

• The Encyclopedia Judaica (Publishing House, P.O.B. 7145, Jerusalem, Israel, 1972, Keter Vol. 7 pg. 680) "The true pronucniation of the name YHWH was never lost. Several early Greek writers of the Christian Church testify that the Name was pronounced 'YAHWEH'." (Obtained from YAIM)

• Jewish Encyclopedia (p. 161) If the explanation of the form above given be the true one, the original pronunciation must have been Yahweh (hwy or Yahaweh (hw. From this the contracted form Jah or Yah (Hy is most readily explained. (Obtained from QLYP)

• Unger's Bible Dictionary Hebrew tetragrammaton (YHWH) traditionally Yahweh, the pronounced Jehovah, is now know to be correctly vocalized Yahweh.

• Thought that in about 1520 AD Petrus Galatinus It is conceived the idea of combining the two names, thus creating the new form Yehowah from which the English term Jehovah comes. Although this form was foreign to Hebrew langauge, it gained wide acceptance and was included as the translation for Yahweh's name in the KJV and ASV. Biblical scholars now agree that the original pronunucation of the divine name was Yahweh.

• The Polychrome Bible (by Prof. Haupt; pp. 163-164) The true pronunciation seems to have been Yahw (or Iahway, the initial I = y, as in Iachimo). The final e should be pronounced like the French , or the English e in there, and the first h sound as an aspirate. The accent should be on the final syllable.

• New Bible Dictionary (p. 478) The pronunciation Yahweh is indicated by transliterations of the name into Greek in early Christian literature, in the form iaoue (Clement of Alexandria) or iabe

• The Oxford English Dictionary (under Jehovah) "It is now held that the original name was IaHUeH".

• Dictionary of Christian Lore and Legend Jehovah, an artificial reconstruction of the incommunicable name of the Creator to protect it from abuse, made by the Masoretes. Yahweh, the vocalization of the sacred and unutterable name of the Creator, represented by the Tetragrammaton.

• The Blackwell Dictionary of Judaica (published in 1992) "Because it was forbidden to pronounce the Tetregrammaton (YHVH, pronounced Yahweh), substitutions and circumlocutions were adopted to refer to God. Various Hebrew terms are used in the Bible; other names arose as a result of rabbinic, philosophical, and kabbalistic usage."

• New Revised Standard (To The Reader) While it is almost if not quite certain that the Name was originally pronounced "Yahweh", this pronunciation was not indicated when the Masoretes added vowel sounds to the consonantal Hebrew text. To the four consonants YHWH of the Name, which had come to be regarded as too sacred to be pronounced, they attached vowel signs indicating that in its place should be read the Hebrew word Adonai meaning "lord" (or Elohim meaning "God").

• New King James Version (Word study on Exodus 3:15 (New Open Bible)) Yahweh - It is very likely that the name was pronounced very much like "Yahweh." Comparisons with transliterations of the name into other alphabets from very ancient times confirm this. The best argument for the spelling is that it is probably the historically accurate. However, the RSV's 1952 introduction explained its reason for rejecting "Yahweh" in the translation. It said that it lacks devotional qualities for English-speaking Christians. It is true that many names beginning with "Y" seem odd to our culture (all the names in English --- including Jesus---were pronounced with a Y sound, in the original, as in "hallelu-Yah").

• The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible "Yahweh - The vocalization of the four consonants of the Israelite name for the Creator, which scholars believe to approximate the original pronunciation." (1962 Vol. 4, pg. 923, Abingdon Press, Nashville)

• Revised Standard Version (Preface) . . . it is almost if not quite certain that the Name was originally pronounced "Yahweh", . . .

Of special note is the last statement by the Revised Standard Version editors. Although they stand opposed to its usage in their translation (for various reasons), they make the sweeping statement, "It is almost if not quite certain that the Name was originally pronounced 'Yahweh'". To make such a claim (especially when they are against its usage) should not be ignored. They have NO reasons to support the form, "Yahweh". By backing the pronunciation as such, they only put themselves in a dimmer light for their openess in NOT using it in translation. This goes for the other scholars above. Why make such firm affirmations, when they have nothing to gain but everything to lose by such claims?

Could it simply be because it is the truth?

The works of Clover, Koster, Rainey, etc. on this issue are very thorough and evidence driven for thier support of the known pronunciation of the name YHWH. Though their methods vary, their results do not, and neither do others of the scholastic community.

CONCLUSION: The English form, "Yahweh" is not a blatent rip-off of the Greek church fathers. In Greek we are left with many forms attemtping the same sound (ee-ah-oo-eh, which many authors choose to write in English as, "Yahweh"). These forms, even those presented by the church fathers, are based on ancient forms and ancient bases and should not be ignored. They are further substantiated by later usage (e.g. the Samaritans) and ancient testimonies (e.g. cuniforms with, "Yahweh" and the relation of the trigrammaton with YHWH, etc.).

The mass efforts of scholars has yet to disporve the form, "Yahweh" (though some of its shortcomings, like the use of a "w", are annoying). Against their own best interest, they affirm the name, "Yahweh". The fact a large section of the evidence brought forth for the pronunciation of the name has remained to us through the church fathers --though not what we had wished for-- should none the less detour us from practicing the truth. If such a synical view is to be harbored, then any and ALL ancient and modern evidence must be ignored on ALL issues, as it has all be passed on by men with evil tongues and deceptive hearts. The fact the early church fathers did pass on some truth (truth depends on WHAT level you look at it, at a very basic level they passed on some of the major truths, like Messiah DID come. They also prgressed to some higher truths, such that almost every ante-Niceane church father upheld the son was created and subordinate to the father).

Anyhow, we can conclude the evidence we have is very agreeable to eachother. Thos who use the form "Yahweh" or other related forms like, "Yheh" (which I feel is much more accurate) or, "ee-ah-oo-eh", etc... have a very FIRM case that is not easily dismissed. It is based thoroughly in ancient linguistics and the evidence at hand, and is not a pagan composition or blatently errant as accused.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> CONCLUSION: In conlusion, one can see that our ourguement for the form "Yahweh" (Yahweh is very slovenly and I do NOT necessarly advocate the form as it is deceptive to the eye not aquanted with the issues -- especially the status of the "w", thus I use the form Yheh) is not errant, but firmly substantiated. It does not break the assertation that the name is vowels and conforms to the mass majority of transliterations of the name. It finds its backbone on the well established sound of the trigrammaton [YHW]. Scholars do recognize the many sounds the vowel letters anciently obtained, including H [Hy]. Reminence of this can be found in the letter H [Hy] in the MT text with the Tiberian vowel points. The majority of the time the final H [Hy] takes on the sounds of either, "h", "ah" or "eh". Even more, the name itself per the vocalization, "Yheh" can be found in many sources -- many not associated with the Church fathers (i.e. Samaritan and an early Christian sects usage of Iae, later use of IAUE, Hellenistic Egyptian use of Iaoue, Ethiopian Yahou in Coptic, Samaritan Yahwe in Arabic, Yahweh in cuniforms, etc...). Even more, the widely attested to Greek form of Iaoue can clearly be seen to be rooted in the from, "Ia" (i.e. IAW) which is widely attested too (even by Jewish sources), making it very implausible that it is an intentionally decietful construct. The sound, "ee-ah-oo-eh" actually rhymes in ancient Samaritan poetry, furthering the point of the last sound.

One can also see the form, "yah-HOO" is unatested less the slovenly form spoken by some modern Jews (though I note even the MT and grammers point out the accent on the Y [Ywd]). On the other hand the forms, "Yau", "eeaoo" and "Yhw" are well attested too and all bear the same sound. They also uphold the unity of the form YH [Yh]. Even more, the errant idea that the name YHWH can be concieved from the name YHWDH is silly at best. It is clearly the construction of 2 words (Yhw and ydh) thus the last vowel sound is that of the word YDH [ydh) and not the tetragrammaton. Even more, the name YHWDH has been altered to the sound, "Y@hwdah" (i.e. the vowel points ahve been altered from Yahw to Y@hw, a compromise to Y@hw) thus there is no certainty that the last vowel has not been altered in like kind. One can not question the similar points between the Y@hwh and Y@hwdah (first and last points being identicle).

One can only conclude that between the massive evidence for the 4 vowels and the sound, "ee-ah-oo-eh" and the large scholastic confirmation to the form, "Yahweh" that those who deny this form must come forth with a new paradigm with conclusive evdience to substantiate their usage. Beyond this, the large contingent of, "Yahweh" sources must be refuted through sound methodology ("They were pagans" is not a reasonable arguement as all the ancient world and scholars are pagans; with that attitude any endouvor into these studies would be squashed form the ouset. The fact often attest form Iaoue is based on the common Jewish form IAW and is comparible to the IAUE, Iae, Yahou, and Yahwe forms beggs the reader to earnestly doubt the mass conspiracy to propogate the form, "Yahweh".)

Until these criteria are meet in earnest scholarship there is no reason to deepsix the sound, "Yheh". It has both ancient and scholastic support and, to this point in time, fit the evidence quite nicely.

Shlwm b'Yheh - Joshua Luna

Here are some questions I raised:
Paleo-Hebrew phonics and the Vowel testimonials:
1. If H [Hy] in paleo-Hebrew phonics makes the, "ah" sound, how is it making the, "H" sound also?
2. How is the H [Hy] in paleo-Hebrew phonics in the name YHWH making 2 sounds? Can the same letter make 2 sounds in the same word, let along the same letter?
3. If the H [Hy] is making the "HOO" sound, and Y [Ywd] is said to making the, "Y" sound how is the recosiled back to the same scholars who state Y [Ywd] is an "i" or "e" class vowel? Is Y [Ywd] able to make 2 vowel sounds for the same letter, let alone the same letter in a word in the same place?
4. How is the "HOO" sound reconsiled unto the plethura of vowel evidence (HOO definitely not being a vowel sound)?
5. How can YW make the, "Yh-HOO" sound? It is clearly a dialectical device (at least originally) used to pronounce the trigrammaton, thus how is the hard "H" reconsiled unto this evidence?
6. What is to be said the the silent H [Hy] in the Aramaic Yu, the soft H [Hy] in ancient Yhwdian Hebrew, the Babylonian form Yau, the many Greek, "eeaoo" forms, etc...?
7. Grammers of the MT agree the accent is not on the H [Hy] yet instead the Y [Ywd], and there is no dagesh. How can this in turn be used as evidence that it supports, "Yah-HOO" when it in no way supports such a claim?
8. YHWDH is clearly two words {i.e. based on the etymology of Gen 29:35 and the clear Yahwistic testimonies we have YHW + YDH = YHW + YDH = YHW+DH (dropped particle Y [Ywd]) = YHWDH = YHWDaH). How can it be argued that the name YHWH can be derived from this word when it in fact is two words, one completely unrelated to YHWH?
9. YHWDH in the MT is, "Y@hwdah" (i.e. the Y [Ywd] is pointed with a sh@wah/short e-sound). How reliable are the remaining vowel points (i.e. the last vowel point of a patach on the D [Dalet]) when we know that it has been fittled with? The fact the name YHWDH, like the king's name YHW', are changed differently then the rest of the Yahwistic names (i.e. YHWDH is pointed with a shewah and YHW' is pointed with a tsr though the Akkadian has this king's name as Yahua), how much reliability can one set on this form at all as it has clear signs, like YHW', that is is completely corrupt? The proto-Negev YHD, Egyptian Yahoud, and MT varient YHWD for the tribe name YHWDH cast a large shadow over the certainty of the pronunciation of the altered YHWDH which can not be ignored.
Ps- If I get time I will approach the form, "Yahuwah" much more specifically (per the evidence I presented above) and some of the claims of YHWH = Yah plus WAH and the extensive secondary evidence arguements. But, I hope the above information will leave you guys with enough to ponder for now. May YHWH bless all of your understandings.



Accessories | Artwork | Bathroom | Bedding | Clearance | Mirrors | Furniture | Hardware | Hat Racks | Horse Decor |
Kitchen | Leather Bags | Lighting | Outdoor | Pillows | Wall Art | Window | Home | Lodge |

All That Cowboy - PO Box 184- Homedale, ID 83628 - 208-337-5576 info@allthatcowboy.com
2002 - 2013 All That Cowboy All Rights Reserved.
Hours: Mon -Tues-Wed-Thur- 9 to 5